The International ruling body should bring in a rule that you play for the country of your birth or the Country a player nominates when he is graded, no changes allowed.

That will rule out plenty of the Aussies in the Kiwi Test teams and leave the Pacific Islands to develop their own.

It will also hit Australia hard where they will feel the full brunt of poaching overseas players where they have played at least 6 or 8 players that may have immigrated to Oz but were not born there in the last 20 years or so.Everyone wins and the farce of representing "Heritage" teams will be done with by the 2013 World Cup.

The ARL press release naming the PM XIII squad stated quite clearly that all of the players picked were eligible for Australia in the Four Nations. Which is a blatant lie.

fair enough if the aussies are releasing that in a press release they need friggins shooting becuase its not right on so many levels.

as an aside can anyone answer the other question about whether it is classified as representing aus so stopping you representing anyone else and do you HAVE to qualify to play for aus to play in the pmXIII in general?

So they do the hard yards and produce players who are signed up by NRL teams. They flourish in a fully professional environment and lo and behold they are lured away from their country of birth and upbringing to play SoO and having to commit to playing for Australia. Akuila Uate ring any bells? It's catch 22 for the PI nations especially. Don't produce any domestic players and cop hidings or produce them and watch as Australia and NZ cherry pick the best and weakening the team resulting in some more hidings.

What level was Uate developed to in Fiji? other than being a fast athlete?Which Fijian team did he play for?Was he plucked from the Fijian national League?

They shouldn't be able to, there should be clear rules on eligibility and every country should live with them. However if that were the case I doubt either Williams or Uate would have played last year, they'd have waited for a shot at Australia.

And there lies the problem. If you enforce a rule that you can only play for one nation (which would be ideal for the code's credibility), too many players would put their hand up for Aus or NZ, as the more likely teams to win trophies and glory. The Pacific Islands would be weakened - left with a loyal core, plus players who don't see themselves ever making the Kangaroo or Kiwi squad.

Somehow, there needs to be a 'critical mass' of players willing to represent - for example - Tonga, so they can become a genuine force in the game, with a chance of competing with the Big Two of the Southern hemisphere. That team's example could get players on board for other nations in the same situation.

Hard to see how it can be done, though.

Between the optimist & the pessimist
The difference is quite droll:
The optimist sees the doughnut,
The pessimist sees the hole.

There is the linkHe moved to Oz aged 15 and has represented Oz schools.

The quicker they bring in hard and fast laws the better. Australia will not even blink, the poor underdeveloped Pacific Island nations will be lost from the World Cup Format.

Adrian Lam resigned from Coaching PNG today to concentrate on Saints and get beyond the Kumul politics and in fighting.

trying to split the topic of my posts up just to try and get an anwer to my general interest question whulst also continuing on with the discussion

he isnt eligable though if he played for tonga in the pacific nations... that is what they would need a special clearence for somethign they dont yet have and until they do he isnt eligable.

on the subject of hte lesser ationa needing the players.. there wil be a critical point though when players will realise that they cannot get in the aus and NZ sides.. say the age of 25 and there are 18 year olds better than them.. there will be plenty in the comp now.. who then put their hands back up for their island and so making that critical mass.. and the cycle begins in earnest.. just that at the moment they can still hold on to the fact that they put their hands up for their island and still get called away.

At least with the above though it may take a little time, when it does happen (and not that much time i dont believe) the smaller nations can build their core base around those players... for example scotland could have built their base around danny brough for the last 2 years (arguably he wouldnt have put his hand up in the first place i agree)... there are players in the islands and in the smaller nations here that are playing and that those nations are trying to build something around who in a year or so could suddenly find the ARL knocking asking if they fancy a game and the whole plan for the island team is screwed!

And there lies the problem. If you enforce a rule that you can only play for one nation (which would be ideal for the code's credibility), too many players would put their hand up for Aus or NZ, as the more likely teams to win trophies and glory. The Pacific Islands would be weakened - left with a loyal core, plus players who don't see themselves ever making the Kangaroo or Kiwi squad.

Agreed. I speculated on a thread on LeagueUnlimited called "Richard Lewis' View on International Eligibility", post 54that a One Nation for Life rule would have that exact effect. I've cited the example of Rugby Union where the IRB's Eligiblity Regulation 8.2 has seen a whole host of dual eligible players opt for NZ, Australia and England RU national teams over Pacific National teams. Post 56 specifically outlines the decline of Manu Samoa national team. Post 57 describes how the Pacific nations in Union have lobbied the Six Nations (who form the powerful voting bloc at the IRB) yet again for the eligibility rule to be changed.

Cricket's eligibility rules are like the RLIF's - they allows players to represent more than one country if they stand down.

but your rule goes against "nationality".. you are stopping people playing for their nation due to a quirk of fate that they started playing the game somewhere else..

having a succesful nation can help grow the domestic game.

but thinking you have a brilliant player who can lift your national team such as Uate who then jumps ship can destroy the national interest in the game. Kids signing up for amateur sides when unde 15 sorts the problem out at least where they are concerned which in the main will be most cases.

but thinking you have a brilliant player who can lift your national team such as Uate who then jumps ship can destroy the national interest in the game. Kids signing up for amateur sides when unde 15 sorts the problem out at least where they are concerned which in the main will be most cases.

i agree but then there will be islanders who play their first match in new zealand who then want to and do represent their island becuase they were not good enough to play for new zealand.. so you are depriving the country of these players also.

Agreed. I speculated on a thread on LeagueUnlimited called "Richard Lewis' View on International Eligibility", post 54that a One Nation for Life rule would have that exact effect. I've cited the example of Rugby Union where the IRB's Eligiblity Regulation 8.2 has seen a whole host of dual eligible players opt for NZ, Australia and England RU national teams over Pacific National teams. Post 56 specifically outlines the decline of Manu Samoa national team. Post 57 describes how the Pacific nations in Union have lobbied the Six Nations (who form the powerful voting bloc at the IRB) yet again for the eligibility rule to be changed.

Cricket's eligibility rules are like the RLIF's - they allows players to represent more than one country if they stand down.

but cricket has two levels of international teams.. and you are allowed to play for two nations but not on the same level.. morgan was ireland and england he coulndt have played for irealnd and scotland (even if he qualified).. the anomolies being when teams become test qualified after being first class nations and the south african re admission and issues now in zimbabwe..

Agreed. I speculated on a thread on LeagueUnlimited called "Richard Lewis' View on International Eligibility", post 54that a One Nation for Life rule would have that exact effect. I've cited the example of Rugby Union where the IRB's Eligiblity Regulation 8.2 has seen a whole host of dual eligible players opt for NZ, Australia and England RU national teams over Pacific National teams. Post 56 specifically outlines the decline of Manu Samoa national team. Post 57 describes how the Pacific nations in Union have lobbied the Six Nations (who form the powerful voting bloc at the IRB) yet again for the eligibility rule to be changed.

Cricket's eligibility rules are like the RLIF's - they allows players to represent more than one country if they stand down.

but cricket has two levels of international teams.. and you are allowed to play for two nations but not on the same level.. morgan was ireland and england he coulndt have played for irealnd and scotland (even if he qualified).. the anomolies being when teams become test qualified after being first class nations and the south african re admission and issues now in zimbabwe..